# K. V. NARAYANASWAMI IYER v. K. V. RAMAKRISHNA IYER AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1964] 7 S.C.R. 490
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, K. C. Das Gupta, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-v-narayanaswami-iyer-v-k-v-ramakrishna-iyer-and-ors-3155
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Hindu Law-Property acquired in the name of a member of
ioin't family-Joint family having sufficient nucleus on that
date-Presumption that property is acquired from joint family
funds-If rebuttable-Past transactions-Manager when accountable.
There were three brothers who continued as members of a
joint family with the eldest of them, the first respondent as the
karta. Certain properties were acquired thereafter for the joint
family. Certain properties were also acquired in the name of thPfirst respondenfs son his wife and grandson. The two other
brothers of respondent no. 1 acquired properties for themselves
out of their own earnings. Relations became strained between the
brothers and the second brother the present appellant filed suit
for partition claiming not only the original properties of the joint
family· and the properties acquired for the joint family by the
Karta, the present respondent but also the properties acquired by
the respondent no. 1 in the name of his \Vife, son and grandson as
joint family properties. He also called on the first respondent to
account for the past years. The third brother was impleaded as
second defendant. Respondent no. l's contention was teat the last
mentioned properties were bought by him from his own savings
and therefore were not part of the joint family property and
consequently not liable to partition. The learned trial Judge held
that those properties were joint family property and were liable
to be partitioned. Respondent No. 1 thereupon appealed to the
High Court and the High Court allowed the appeal regarding substantial part of the schedule properties. Thereupon the appellant
filed the present appeal.
Held: (i) Where properties were acquired in the name of a
joint family member, if at the date of' such acquisition the joint
family had sufficient nucleus for acquiring it, the property should
be presumed to have been acquired from out of family funds and
so to form part of the joint family property, unless the contrary
is shown. In the present case on a consideration of the evidence
it is found th~ the joint family had at the date of the acquisition
of the properties in question sufficient nucleus from which these
properties could be acquired.
Amritlal Sen & Ors. v. Surath Lal Sen, A.LR. 1942 Cal. 553
and Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurthy, I.L.R. [1948] Mad
(P.C.) 440, referred to.
(ii) In the absence of any evidence of fraud or misrepresentation the Karta of a joint family cannot be called upoJl to account
for the past transactions, but this does n»t mean that the parties
were bound to accept the statement of the Karla as to what the
property consisted of and an enquiry should be directed by the
court in a manner usually adopted to dis~over that in fact the
property consisted of at the date of the partit10n. In what ~anner
this principle can be applied depends on the facts and c:rcumstances of each case. Where as m the present case the evidence
on record shows prima facie that the Karta could not reasonably
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4.91
be expected to have in his hands at the date of the suit any ac1964
cumulaties found on evidence to have been acquired by the famiK. v. Narayana.
ly, there can be no justification for calling the Karta to account """mi
Jy"
foc his past dealing with the joint family property and its income.
v.
K.V.Ramakrialona
Pammchwar Dube v. Govind Dube, IL.R., 53 Cal. 459,
Iyer and Ollur,_
explained..
..
Qvn. APPEU.ATE JURISDICTIO~: Civil Appeal No. 589
of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree
dated April 28. 1953, of the Madras High Court in A.S. No.
69S of 1949.
K.N. Rajagopal Sastri, K. Jayram and R. Ganapthy Iyer.
foc the appellanL
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T.V.R. Tatachari, for re~
pondent nos. I, 3, 4 and 6 to 8.
B. Kalyona Sumlaram, M. Rajagopalan, K. Rajendra
Chaudhry. M. R. Krishna Pillai for K. R. Chaudhuri, for res·
pondent no. 2.
March 26. 1964. The Judgment of the Court was deli·
vered by
DAS CiuPTA, J.-Three brothers,

## Text

1964
Jlarch26
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964)
K. V. NARAYANASWAMI IYER
v.
K. V. RAMAKRISHNA IYER AND ORS.
[K. SUBBA RAO, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.J
Hindu Law-Property acquired in the name of a member of
ioin't family-Joint family having sufficient nucleus on that
date-Presumption that property is acquired from joint family
funds-If rebuttable-Past transactions-Manager when accountable.
There were three brothers who continued as members of a
joint family with the eldest of them, the first respondent as the
karta. Certain properties were acquired thereafter for the joint
family. Certain properties were also acquired in the name of thPfirst respondenfs son his wife and grandson. The two other
brothers of respondent no. 1 acquired properties for themselves
out of their own earnings. Relations became strained between the
brothers and the second brother the present appellant filed suit
for partition claiming not only the original properties of the joint
family· and the properties acquired for the joint family by the
Karta, the present respondent but also the properties acquired by
the respondent no. 1 in the name of his \Vife, son and grandson as
joint family properties. He also called on the first respondent to
account for the past years. The third brother was impleaded as
second defendant. Respondent no. l's contention was teat the last
mentioned properties were bought by him from his own savings
and therefore were not part of the joint family property and
consequently not liable to partition. The learned trial Judge held
that those properties were joint family property and were liable
to be partitioned. Respondent No. 1 thereupon appealed to the
High Court and the High Court allowed the appeal regarding substantial part of the schedule properties. Thereupon the appellant
filed the present appeal.
Held: (i) Where properties were acquired in the name of a
joint family member, if at the date of' such acquisition the joint
family had sufficient nucleus for acquiring it, the property should
be presumed to have been acquired from out of family funds and
so to form part of the joint family property, unless the contrary
is shown. In the present case on a consideration of the evidence
it is found th~ the joint family had at the date of the acquisition
of the properties in question sufficient nucleus from which these
properties could be acquired.
Amritlal Sen & Ors. v. Surath Lal Sen, A.LR. 1942 Cal. 553
and Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurthy, I.L.R. [1948] Mad
(P.C.) 440, referred to.
(ii) In the absence of any evidence of fraud or misrepresentation the Karta of a joint family cannot be called upoJl to account
for the past transactions, but this does n»t mean that the parties
were bound to accept the statement of the Karla as to what the
property consisted of and an enquiry should be directed by the
court in a manner usually adopted to dis~over that in fact the
property consisted of at the date of the partit10n. In what ~anner
this principle can be applied depends on the facts and c:rcumstances of each case. Where as m the present case the evidence
on record shows prima facie that the Karta could not reasonably
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4.91
be expected to have in his hands at the date of the suit any ac1964
cumulaties found on evidence to have been acquired by the famiK. v. Narayana.
ly, there can be no justification for calling the Karta to account """mi
Jy"
foc his past dealing with the joint family property and its income.
v.
K.V.Ramakrialona
Pammchwar Dube v. Govind Dube, IL.R., 53 Cal. 459,
Iyer and Ollur,_
explained..
..
Qvn. APPEU.ATE JURISDICTIO~: Civil Appeal No. 589
of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree
dated April 28. 1953, of the Madras High Court in A.S. No.
69S of 1949.
K.N. Rajagopal Sastri, K. Jayram and R. Ganapthy Iyer.
foc the appellanL
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T.V.R. Tatachari, for re~
pondent nos. I, 3, 4 and 6 to 8.
B. Kalyona Sumlaram, M. Rajagopalan, K. Rajendra
Chaudhry. M. R. Krishna Pillai for K. R. Chaudhuri, for res·
pondent no. 2.
March 26. 1964. The Judgment of the Court was deli·
vered by
DAS CiuPTA, J.-Three brothers, Ramakrishna, NarayaDaaGupta,J.
naswamy and Mahadeva, who are eighty-three, seventy nine
and sixty nine years of age respectively, are the main figures in
this litig;ltion.. After their father's death in 1908 the three
brothers cxmtinued as members of a joint family. The eldest
brother, Ramakrishna became under the law the Karta of the
family. When the father died the family was possessed of
about 10 acres of land. But he had left some debts and one of
the first acts which Ramakrishna had to do as the Manager
was the repayment of those debts. Ramakrishna had become
the Kamam in Narasingampettai in 1902 and even during hi~
father's life time started acquiring property. Property to the
extent of aboot 2S acres was acquired for the joint family
between the years 1911 to 1931. In 1927 Ramakrishna had
been transferred to the bigger village of V epatthur and continued to be there till 1930. On his retirement in that year his
son Venkalar.una succeeded him as the Kamam of Vepattbur. Betwa:n 1931 to 1946 properties in Vepa.tthur and other
villages were acquired in the name of Ramaki1ishna's son
Vanbtarama, his wife Mangalathammal, his grand~on (Venbfar:1ma's soo) Mahalingam. Some property was acquired
aJso m the name of Mangalathammal's brother Raja Ayyar.
Monies were also invested in loans in the names of Rama·
hislma's wife, Mangalathammal, his son Venkatarama and
Jaa gnt•wlsoo, Mahalingam.
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1964
The second brother Narayanaswami became a Vakil's
K. V. N~rayana. clerk in Kumbakonam in 1910. The third brother Mahadeva
•wam~
Iyer who was a boy of thirteen at the time of his father's death was
K. v. Ra;,..kri.ohna put into the medical school and qualified as a doctor. He was
Iyer and Ot/,.rs in servi~e as a' Sub: Assistant Surgeon at the time when the preDaa Gupta, J. iient smt was mstttuted by Narayanaswamy. ·Both of them
earned well and have admittedly acquired properties for themselves out of their own earnings.
As early as the thirties feelings became strained betv.een
Ramakrishna, the eldest brother and Narayanaswami the
second brother. Mahadeva who had to remain away at different places in connection with his service demanded partition
of the joint family properties and in this Narayanaswami also
seems to have joined him. The extreme action of going to
courts was however not taken so long as mother was alive.
She died early in 1945 at the age of 90 years. In December,
(]2th December) 1946 Narayanaswami sent a lawyer's notice
to Ramakrishna in which he claimed that not only the 25 acres
acquired between 1911 and 1931 but also the properties acquired in the name of Ramakrishna's wife. his son and
brother·in-law had been acquired with the income of the family and formed part of the joint family properties. He claimed
also in this notice that family funds of about Rs. 25.000 {- was
in the hands of Ramakrishna in the shape of cash and Benami
investments. He demanded a partition of all these properties
and of the cattle and other movable properties owned by the
family. He also called upon Ramakrishna to account for the
income derived from the family properties "for the last three
years at least". In all these he claimed a one-third share.
To this Ramakrishna.replied on December 31, 1946. He
stated that the joint family properties consisted only of l 0
acres left by their father and about 25 acres acquired later on
and denied that the other properties belonged to the family.
Soon after this, on the !st February 1947. Narayanaswami
brought this suit for partition and accounts in the court of the
Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. The eldest brother Ramakrishna was impleaded as the first defendant; Mahadeva. the
third brother, was the second defendant. Ramakrishna's son
Venkatarama, his wife Mangalathammal and his brother-inlaw Raja Iyer were impleaded as the third, fourth and the
fifth defendants respectively. Mahalingam was impleaded as
the sixth defendant Two other minor sons of Venkatarama
were also impleaded. They are the seventh and the eighth
defendants in the case.
The plaintiff's case was short and simple. He claimed that
Ramakrishna as the Karta of the joint family managed the
family properties and acquired properties with the family
funds from 1911 to 1946. He thus claimed that not only the 34
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
493
acres and 58 cents of land in the village Kumarakshi (men1961
tioned in the A Schedule) which the first defendant Rama- x. v. Narayanakrishna's wife or son or grandson or brother-in-law were joint
swami Iyer
ties mentioned in the Scheduk-s B, Bl and B2, and C, Cl and
v
v. kriBh
C2 and D for which the sale deeds stood in the name of Rama- K[y;,~a;: 0ta..':
krishna's wife or son or grandsc'!l or brother-in-law were joint
family properties. He claimed also that between 1931 and 1946
Das Gupta,
J.
Ramakrishna, the Karta. had invested family funds in the
name of his wife. his son and his l!fandson and these were also
joint family properties. The movable properties claimed to be
joint family properties were mentioned in Schedule A2, while
the house in Thiagarajapuram, also claimed to be joint family
property was mentioned in Al Schedule. The plaintiff prayed
for allotment to him of one third share of these properties by
division in metes and bounds into three equal shares. He
further prayed for a direction on the first defendant to account
for the management of the family properties for three years
and for payment to the plaintiff of his share in the amount
that may be found due.
The second defendant Mahadeva generally supported the
plaintiff though as regards the years, 1940, 1941, 1942 and
1943 his case in the written statement was that it was the plaintiff Narayanaswamy and not the first defendant who collected
the income frqm the joint family properties. For these four
years, he pleaded that the plaintiff was liable to render an account while for the remaining period the first defendant was
said to be liable. In a Schedule to his written statement he mentioned several other items of properties which he claimed belonged to the joint family though one of the sale deeds stood
in the name of the sixth defendant Mahalingam and the other
in the name of the fifth defendant Raja Ayjar. The other
defendants contested the suit.
The first defendant's case was that though on his father's
death he became in law the Karta of the joint Hindu family
the actual management was carried on by the mother till 1940
and from 1940 till the mother's death in 1945 by the plaintiff
Narayanaswami. It was only after the mother's death that he
has taken up the ,management of the properties. He pleaded
that of the properties mentioned in the plaint only 34.58 acres
mentioned in the A Schedule formed the joint family property.
(In addition to some of the movable properties mentioned in
A2 Schedule). He further pleaded that a house in Kumbakonam town which was acquired by the plaintiff in his own
name as also some lands in Manalur village in Kumbakonam
and Rs. 8,000 /- in casji which the plaintiff had obtained on
sale of certain lands also formed part of the joint family
property.
His wife Mangalathammal, the fourth defendant also
pleade<;l that the properties and the investments standing in her
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[IDMJ
1964
name were made by her on her own account with the monies
K. v. Narayana- whic_h her husband Ramakrishna gave to her from his own
..,,.,,., Iy"
earmngs. These therefore were not part of the joint family proK. V. lla~h
... perty and consequently not liable to partition.
Iyu and Otha-•
The third defendant (Venkatarama's) case was that the
Daaa<Ju:p14, J. purchases of land and investments of money srandjng in his
name were all with his own earnings since he became Qamam
and did not form part of the joint family property. As reganls
what stood in the name of his son Mahalingam the thinl
defendant pleaded that these were with his own eanings. The
fifth defendant also pleaded that whatever stood in his name
was acquired by him with Iris own money 2.nd did not form
part of the joint family of the plaintiff and his brothers.
The learned Subordinate Judge held Gll a considetation
of the evidence that the plaintiff's case that the Lldest b!Uthe£
Ramakrishna managed the family property zs the Karta from
and after their father's death in 1908 till the date cf the suit
had been established. He also came to the conclusion that in
about 1931 Ramakrishna had with him an aa:umulaled income of about Rs. 14,000/- belonging to the family and but
very little money of his own. From these findings it was an easy
step to hold, as the learned Judge did,. that the immovable properties mentioned in Schedules A, Al, B, Bl, C. Cl, C2 and
D as also Item 5 in Schedule B2 were all properties belonging
to the joint family. Out of these he found that the properties
in Schedule Al, that is, a house in Thiagarajapuram had been
given away to the sister Rukmaniammal and was no kmgt:r a
joint family property and therefore not liable to divisioi:L. The
rest of the properties, he held, was liable to be divided amoog:
the three brothers, the plaintiff and the defendants I and 2
The Court also held that the mortgages and ~
notes
on whlch money had been lent in the names of defeOOants 3
to 5 belonged to the joint family with the exception of a few
standing in the name of the thlrd defendant (Venbtarama).
which was held to be the third defendant's personal property.
A preliminary decree was made by the Court in accordana:-
with these findings with a direction that an account be taken·
with reference to income of the properties in Schedules A, Al~
B, Bl, C, Cl and D and Item 5 in Sch. B2 and 1he house at
Kumbakonam mentioned in the Schedule to the first ~
dant's written statement, for three years priO£ to the date of
the suit and from the date of the suit till the passing of the
final decree. As regards the properties in Scbednle A it was
directed that the accounting will cease from the date en whiclr
the parties took possession of their share in aaxxdance with:
the interim decree.
Against this decision the first defendant ~
to the
Hi&h Court of Judicature at Madras. The plainlitf also fikd
'1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
495
an appeal challenging the decision of the Subordinate Judge
1964
that the house in Kumbakonam was a joint family property. K.V. Nara1JCVA4The High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal holding that the
awami Jy.,.
Kumbakonam house was a separate self acquisition of the K.v.~
plaintiff. Against this decision of the High Court no appeal has
Iyer allll Ollltr•
been preferred and we are no longer concerned with the question whether this house was plaintiff's property or not.
Daa Gupla, J.
In the appeal preferred by the first defendant the High
Court came to the conclusion, disagreeing with the Trial
Court, that the first defendant Ramakrishna had saved enough
from his separate earnings from which it was quite possible
for him to make all the acquisitions and investments in the
name of his son, wife and grandson subsequent to 1930. In the
opinion of the High Court the view of the Subordinate Judge
that by 1930 the first defendant had in his hands a sum of
Rs. 14,000 I· accumulated from the income of the joint family
lands was "surprising and untenable". It did not disturb the
Trial Court's findings that Schedule D land acquired in the
name of the 3rd defendant was joint family property, ap· .
parently because no appeal had been filed as regards this property. Taking these 14 acres to be acquisitions for the family
the High Court recorded its conclusion thus: -
"When we consider that the joint family nucleus has
been more than quadrupled, it is difficult to see
what grievance the younger coparceners really
have, particularly the second defendant, who after
keeping for himself his earnings as a Doctor in
Government Service finds himself entitled to a
share in a greatly increased ancestral patrimony."
Fina:lly the High Court concluded "that the plaintiff bas
not shown that any of the acquisitions or investments in the
names of defendants 3, 4 and 6 were made from joint family
funds." Accordingly, it allowed also the appeal preferred by
the first defendant, holding that the only items liable for parti·
tion as joint property assets were those in Schedules A and D.
It also ordered that the first defendant would account for the
income from 12th December 1946, the date on which notice
demanding partition was sent to him by the plaintiff. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against this deci·
sion of the High Court.
Two main arguments were advanced before us by Mr.
Rajagopala Sastri in support of the appeal. The first is as regards the properties purchase~ in the name of the first" defendant's wife, his son, and hiS grandson. Learned Counsel subn:iitted tha.t the High Court did not record any clear conclu-
~t?n that .at the date of the ~cquisition of these properties the
JOmt family had not a sufficient nucleus for acquiring these.
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1964J
1964
He argued that the acquisitions in the name of the first defenK.V. Narayana- dant's wife was admittedly with funds advanced by the first
swami Iyer
defendant himself; and if at the date of the acquisition in her
K. v. Ra;;.lcrishna name the joint famHy had sufficient nucleus for acquiring
Iyer and Others them, the presumption would be that they were acquired with
joint family funds notwithstanding the fact that the first defenDaa Gupta, J.
dant may have sufficient funds of his own for the same purpose. It was rightly argued that in such a case the property
should be held to be joint family property unless the presump
tion of the acquired property also being joint family property
was re-butted by the first defendant. It was also argued that
acquisitions in the name of the third defendant and the sixth
defendant should also be held to have been made with funds
advanced by the first defendant himself and so these also
should be presumed to have been acquired with joint family
funds if it is shown that the joint family had sufficient nucleus
for acquiring these at the date of the acquisitions and the first
defendant does not show positively that the funds with which
they were acquired did not belong to the joint family.
The legal position is well settled that if in fact at the date
of acquisition of a particular property the joint family had
sufficient nucleus for acquiring it, the property in the name of
any member of the joint family should be presumed to be acquired from out of family funds and so to form part of the
joint family property, unless the
contrary is shown. (Vide
Amritlal Sen & ors., v. Surath Lal Sen & others(') Appalaswam; v. Suryanarayanamurthy & others(').
In the case before us, it is not disputed that the acquisitions in the name of the first defendant's wife were made with
funds advanced by him. As regards the acquisitions in the
name of the third defendant and his minor son the sixth defendant also we find it reasonable to hold from the evidence, as
regards the earnings of the third defendant and other circumstances, that for these acquisitions also money was paid by the
first defendant. The question whether the joint family had at
the time of each of these acquisitions sufficient nucleus from
which the acquisitions could have been made is therefore of
great importance.
On a consideration ot the evidence, as discussed below,
we have come to the conclusion that it does not appear that
the joint family had at the date of tile acquisitions made in the
names of the first-defendant's.wife, his son, and his grandson
sufficient nucleus from which these properties could be acquired. In coming to this conclusion we have taken into consideration the fact that family funds were spent in pUJchasing 14
acres of land mentioned in the name of the 5th defendant.
(') A.I.R. 1942 Cal. 553.
(') LL.R. [1948] Mad. (P.C.) 440.
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
497
The period during which acquisitions admittedly for the
196#
joint family were made came to an end in about l 931. At that x. v. Karayanatime the first defendant had, according to his own evidence, su-ami
Iyer
about Rs. 15,000/- in his hand. His case is that this entire K.V. Ra;,;akrishno
amount was what he had accumulated out of his own earnIyer and Ot~ers
ings. The Subordinate Judge held that a little more than Da• Gupta,
J.
Rs. 14,000 /- out of this amount was ihe savings from the family funds. We agree with the High Court that thi~ conclus!on
is not justified by the evidence on the record. As rightly pomt-
'
ed out by the High Court properties worth about Rs. 20,000 /-
had been purchased out of the family income during this
period. During part of this period at least monies had to be
spent for other requirements of the family including the expenses on the education of the third brother Mahadeva. The
several documents produced in the case show that at the time
of more than one purchase the first liefendant had to borrow
money on promissory notes to pay the consideration mentioned in the documents. It is worth mentioning that even the
plaintiff: was not prepared to say that the family in.coll!e was
sufficient to pay for these purchases. In cross-exammat10n a
question was put to him in these words : -
"Q. From 1911 out of the family income Rs. 20,000 I -
worth of lands had been purchased? Can there
have been more income from the family lands?"
The answer is significant. It was in these words:·-
"A. From the family income. the joint income of myself and
Defendant I
certainly
exceeded
Rs. 20,000 I-. The income of myself and Defendant I which went in the purchase of lands may
have come to Rs. 10.000/-".
In other words. the plaintiff: himself seem to concede that
only Rs. 10.0001- of the family income was available during
this period for purchase of lands. The claim made here that
he also contributed to the purchase is clearly inconsistent with
his own written statement and with other parts of his evidence
and cannot be accepted.
The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have been convinced that Ramakrishna's personal earnings were very little.
He thought also that what little Ramakrishna earned was
required for the expenses of his own branch of the family. The
learned Judge concluded that he could not have saved out of
these earn\ngs. This view appears to have been mainly responsible for this conclusion that almost the whole of Rs. l 5,000 /.
which the defendant No. I admitted to have with him in about
l _931 ·came out of the family funds. In our opinion, the matenals on the record do not justify the Trial Court's view that
Ramakrishna could
not have accumulated a sum of
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1964]
1961
Rs. 15,000/- out of his own income. The mamools which he
K. v. Xarayanareceived as Karnam of Narasingampettai and later on of the
•wami
Iyer
bigger village Vepatthur amounted to a considerable quanK v R "· k . h
tity of paddy and must have fetched him a goodly income.
·1;er ~':/ <fth~r:a There was apart from this, his income from the banana plantations which he had at Narasingampettai. One of the lease
Das Gupta, J. deeds shows a receipt of Rs. 450 /- for one season. Taking good
years with bad, it would not be unreasonable to think that this
also brought him a few thousands of rupees. ·we are convincerl
also on a consideration of his evidence, t<.ken with the entries
in the account book of Appaswamy Iyer !Ex. B 101) that he
received a sum of Rs. 2,500 /- as reward for successfully maintaining the litigation on Appalaswamy's behalf. ihere can be
little doubt that he received a good sum also as fees for writing documents. One of his witnesses, Narayanaswami Reddiar, DW 7, has given evidence that he paid the defendant
Rs. LOOO /- as fees for the documents written for him. Even if
this be considered an exaggeration, 1t is quite clear from the
evidence of this witness that Ram3krishna who, it may be
noted, was' a man of some education, did a flourishing side
business as a writer of documents, saved two or three thousand
rupees, earned by him by this work during the entire period
he served as a Karnam. It is more than probable that he had
other sources of income which he did not think it prudent to
mention in the witness box.
On a consideration of the circumstances we are convinced that this story that he had Rs. 15,000/- in his hands in
about 1931 as accumulated out of his own earnings is substantially true.
Mr. Rajagopala Sastri has however rightly pointed out
that a finding that in 1931 very little remained out of the
family income would not be sufficient to show that there was
no sufficient nucleus for the acquisition of the different properties in the name of the defendant's wife, his son ~nd his
grandson after 1931. For a proper decision of this question it
is necessary to consider roughly the income and expenditure
out of the admittedly family properties during this period.
We shall first consider the period, 1931 to 1939, as it is
clear from the evidence that during this period the defendant
No. I carried on the actual management of the joint family properties. It is common case of both the parties that the paddy
yield in 1931 was 856 kalams; during 1932 1,000 kalams and·
during 1933 1,118 kalams. For the next five years paddy yield
was, according to the respondent's counsel, J,058, 1,058, 958,
958, and 958 kalams. The appellant's counsel puts his estimates and l,160 kalams respectively. These differences in the
estimates for these years at the higher figures of 1,360, 1,360,
1,160, 1,160 seem to be mainly due to the fact that while,
•
...
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
499
according to the respondent, the family was in possession of
1964
only six acres of mortgaged land in addition to the 35 acres, K.V . .NarayaM·
the appellant's case was that an additional area of six acres
swami
Iyer
of mortgaged land was also in the_ family's possessir.n during K.V.Ra;,;,,krishno
these years. Mr. Ra jagopala Sastn was not however able to
Iyer and Other•
Point out anything on the record in support of this claim.
II
Da8 Gupta, J.
We think it reasonable therefore to accept as substantia y
correct the estimate of paddy yield as mentioned before us
on behalf of the respondent for these years. For the year 1939
the yield may be taken as 1,153 kalams roughly as in that
year the D Schedule lands now found to be the property of
the joint family had also been acquired.
On an examination of the evidence on the record we accept
the price for each kalam of paddy to be Rs. 2.50 nP for each of
the years 1931 and 1932 an\! 1.19, l.25, 1.37, 1.40, 1.50, 1.56
and 1.62 for the years 1933 to 1939 respectively, as contended
before us on behalf of the respondent. '.fhe total income received from paddy in these nine years thus appears to be about
Rs. 14,976/·. To this has to be added the receipts from the dry
crops like black grams and green grams grown on some of the
lands. We accept the evidence given by the defendant that dry
crops were not grown in every year and also not en all the
lands. The sale proceeds of black grams and green grams
amounted to Rs. 72 I - for the year 1935 according to the account book Ex. A 98. Taking this to be the average receipt per
year from the dry crops the receipts from these crops during
the nine years under consideration ''amounted to about
Rs. 648 I-. The total income from the crops grown on the joint
family lands during the years 1931 to 1939 thus works out approximately to be about Rs. 15,624 I·. Adding to this the sum
of Rs. 1,100/- received on repayment of the mortgage loan on
Ex. 187 the joint family earnings during these nine years appears to have amounted to about Rs. 16,724/-.
It is now necessary to have some idea of the expenditure
incurred during these years. The claim of expenditure of
Rs. 5,172/ · during these years made before us on behalf of the
respondent is not disputed by the appellant. We think also that
the respondent's claim that Rs. 1,100/- advanced on the mortgage bond <Ex. 187) was paid from family funds should be accepted. We have next to add the sum of Rs. 6,500/- that was
pai~ for the purchase of the D. Sc~edule lands, Rs. 4,030 /. paid
as k1sts and Rs. 2.000 I· as cultivation expenses including Kariasthan's pay. The total expenditure during the nine years-1931
to 1939-amounted thus to more than Rs. 18,000/-.
Proceed_ing therefore on the basis on which there is no
longer any_ dispute, t?at the D Schedule lands were acquired out
of the family _funds, 1t appears clear that the jomt family did not
possess sufficient nucleus for making any of the other purchases .
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1964]
i964
made during this period. viz~. the properties mentioned in Schex. v. N .... _
dules Band Bl purchased by the document Ex. 125. the pro-
...,,.;
Iyer
perties mentioned in Schedule Cl purchased by the document
x. v. Ra~ba Ex. B 124. the properties mentioned in Schedule C purchased
Iyeraai.IOU-• by Ex. 129. the.properties mentioned in the Schedule to the
written statement of the second defendant purchased by docuDaa Gvpta, J. ments Exhibits B 134 and B 135. The Hi!!h Court's conclusion
as regards these properties that they did ~ot form part of the
joint family properties and are not liable to partition in the present suit is therefore clearly correct_
The properties mentioned in Schedule C2 were purchased
on the 24th April 1941 by Ex. 136 in the name of the 4th defendant while properties mentioned in Item l of B2 Schedule were
purchased on the 19th August 1942 by Ex. 126 in the name of
the sixth defendant. Though it was the first defendant's case
that he had nothing to do with these purchases we are convinced on a consideration of the evidence that the monies for these
purchases were also advanced by him. To decide whether these
properties or the properties mentioned in Item 5 of Schedule
82, a house in Vepatthur. of which mortgage \>as taken in the
name of the first defendant himself bv Ex. B 1929 on the 10th
May 1942, formed part of the joint family property, it is necessary to examine what funds, if any, belonging to the joint family
were with the first defendant during these years. The first defendant's case, as already indicated, is that from 1940 till the
mother's death in 1945 the plaintiff and not he managed the
joint family properties so that he did not receive any portion of
the joint family earnings during the period. The plaintiff has
strenuously denied the truth of this statement. There are several circumstances however which make us think that the first
defendant's version is true. The most important of these is the
fact that the youngest brother Mahadeva, who is clearly siding
with the plaintiff in this family quarrel, made a definite assertion in his written statement in these words: "Similarly the
plaintiff has been collecting the income from the joint family
properties during the years 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943." He
also stated there that the plaintiff had assured him that he
would maintain proper accounts for the collection and expenditure of the income joint family for his period of management
and made the definite claim that the plaintiff was liable to
render an account for the period of his management. It is true
that at the trial Mahadeva tried to explam away this assertion
in the written statement by saying that this was based on information given to him by the defendant No. I. In the very next
sentence, however, he again said that this view that the plaintiff was exclusively managing for <:.!rtain years was his conclusion. It is important to notice in this connection t~at at the bottom of Ex. H 190 dated the 13th March 1941 which Mahadeva
•
..
.. .
7 S.C.R.
· SUPRE~lE.COURT.REPORTS
501
. received. from Ramakrishna, Mahadeva'made in his own hand
1961
an entry in red ink to the followinj): effect:.-, ·, ·
· ·
"1939-Kuruvai (paddy}-sold by Nam· 1<;;39-Semba
Mudal (harvest}-by Nana, sold in 1940."
K.V.1taraya1UJswami Iyer
v.
It is true that there are some ktters '\',bich indi~ate that
even during 1941 and thereafter Ramakrishna was issuing some
instructions to the Kariasthan. But, considering the facts mentioned above along with the letters E thibits B 177 and B 72 in
which detailed instructions about the cultivation were being
given by the plaintiff to the Kariasthan, we have come to the
conclusion that from about 1940 till the mother's death early in
1945 the plaintiff displaced the first _defendant from the management of the family lands and took away all the family lands in
K;umarakshi and took away all the income from them.
The only income from joint family properties that appears .
to have come into the hands of the lirst defendant during this
period was that from D Schedule lands. The yield from these
lands may roughly be estimated at about 300 kalams for each
year. The price per kalam in 1941 appears from Ex. 100 to have
been Rs. 2/6/-. The net income, after payment of the kist and
debiting the expenses of cultivation etc.; may be placed therefore at about Rs. 500 /-. It is undoubtedly a very rough estimate.
But in the absence of anything more specific on the record we
think it proper to accept this as a reasonable basis for ascertaining the nucleus available in the first defendant's hands from
the D. Schedule property. On this calculation the first defendant appears to have had in his hands about Rs .. 1.500/- during
the years 1940 to 1942. There was already however a deficit of
more than this amount on his management of the properties
during the previous period 1931 to 1939. It is reasonable therefore to think that there was no nucleus from the joint family
properties which the first defendant could have possibly t:sed in
making the acquisitions during 1941 and 1942. The conclusion
of the High Court that these properties did not belong to the
joint family and are therefore not liable to partition cannot
therefore be disturbed.
K. V. Ramakrishna
Iyer a11-d Others
Daa Gupta, J.
Some of the properties mentioned in Schedule B2 to the
plaint were purchased in 1945 and 1946 by Ex.: B 127 and.B~.
128 in the name of. the third defendant, Venkatarama. At the
time of these acquisitions the third defendant had been karnam
of Vepatthur for over 15 years. It is not unlikely he would
have saved some portion of his own earnings during this period
so as to be able to pay for these purchases out of his own earnings. It cannot therefore be said reasonably that these purchases
were made from funds advanced by the first defendant. Apart
from this, it appears that the plaintiff has not been able to show
that at the time of these acquisitions the first defendant had
. , / - ·,~.~~~;~~· ·:~\ \~~~,-~~ :. \
~":'>
J \:.:~, ',
• '
, 't
'\ ',
\, . I
502
SUPRE~IE. COURT REPORTS
[19G4}
1964 ·
with him sufficient income out of the joint family properties for
K. v. Narayanapurchasing all these lands. We have already found that the first
awami Iyer
. · defendant resumed management of the joint family properties
Ky R v. k . h
on his mother's death in 1945. On the question about the in1;,; •• 'd'"o;l:,.na come and expenses during this period there is hardly any evi-
.
dence worth the name on the record:" On a consideration of all
D .. Gupta, J.
these circumstances, we are of opinion that the High Court's
conclusion as regards these properties also that they did not
form part of the joint family property is correct.
This brings us to Mr. Rajagopala Sastri's second argument.·
While admitting the legal position that in the absence of any
evidence of fraud or misappropriation the Karta cannot be called upon to account for the past transactions, learned Counsel
stresses the responsibility of the Karta to establish what are the
assets available for partition. In support of this, the learned
Counsel drew our attention to the decision in Parmeshwar
Dube v. Gobind Dube('). That case laid down the rule that in
the absence of fraud or other improper conduct the only ac- .
count the Karta of a joint family is liable for is to the existing state of the property divisible; but that this did not mean
that the parties were bound to accept the statement of the Karta
as to what the property consisted of and an enquiry should be
directed by the court in a manner usually adopted to discover
what in fact the property consisted of at the date of the partition. About the correctness of this proposition there is no dispute. In what manner this principle can be applied depends
however on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, as
in the present case, the evidence aiready adduced before the
court shows prima facie that the Karta could not reasonably be ·
expected to have in his hands at the date of the suit any accumulation worth the name in addition to the irr.movable properties
found on evidence to have been acquired for the family. there
can be no justification for calling the Karta to account for his
past dealings with the joint family property and its income. In
the circumstances of this case therefore the order of the High
Court that there was no liability on the first defendant as managing member to render any account of any kind prior to the 12th
December 1946, on which notice demanding partition was
issued, does not call for any modification.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
(') I.L.R. 53 CaL 459.